HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03221994 - 1.101 I, ion •� .
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: J. MICHAEL WALFORD, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DATE: March 15, 1994
SUBJECT: Approving Laurel Detention Basin Ball Fields Project, Oakley Area.
Project No. 7557-6D8322 CDD-CP #93-76
Specific Request(s) or Recommendation(s) & Background & Justification
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
APPROVE Project, and FIND, on the basis of the initial study and all comments received, that
there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
ADOPT the Negative Declaration in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act,
and DIRECT the Public Works Director to begin right of way acquisition and to prepare contract
plans, and specifications for construction and necessary use agreements between the Park
District and the Flood Control District.
DIRECT the Director of Ccmmunity Development to file a Notice of Determination and a
Certificate of Fee Exemption: De Minimis Impact Finding with the County Clerk.
DIRECT the Public Works Director to arrange for payment of the $25.00 handling fee to the
County Clerk.
II. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The estimated project cost is $205,000, funded by Park Dedication Trust Fund $165,000 (82%)
and Drainage Area 30A Funds $40,000 (18%).
Continued on Attachment: X SIGNATURE.J, /
_RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE _OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON MAR 2 2 1994 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED /OTHER_
VOTJ�OF SUPERVISORS
��// UNANIMOUS (ABSENT
AYES: NOES:
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
SE:fp I hereby certify that this is a true andconed copy of
h:XBo%Laurell5.q an action taken and ontered on the minutes of the
Board of Super k opG 7%Town.
Orifi.Div: Public Works(Administration) ATTESTED:— G y
Contact: Slap Epperly 313-2253 PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board
cc: County Administrator of Supervisors and unty Administrator
Attn: E.Kuevor
Auditor-Controller By ,Deputy
PW Accounting
K. McNamer,Real Property
Community Development
_i rAA
SUBJECT: Approve Laurel Basin Ball Fields Project, Oakley Area,.Project No. 7557-6D8322
CDD-CP #93-76
March 1,5, 1994
Page -2-
III. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND:
The project includes the acquisition of two parcels. Parcel #1 consists of Y2 acre to be purchased
with Drainage Area 30A Funds. Parcel#2 consists of 2 acres to be purchased with Park Dedication
Funds. Both parcels will be combined with the existing 11 acre detention basin for future
development as a ball field and passive park site. This project is needed to supplement the need
for additional park lands in the Oakley Area.
The project has been determined to be in compliance with the General Plan. A Negative Declaration
of environmental significance pertaining to this project was published December 17, 1993, and the
Board has considered the negative declaration togetherwith all comments received during the public
review period and the responses to those comments prepared by staff.
This project has been found to be de minimis in its effect on the environment and is exempt from the
$1,250.00 Fish and Game filing fee.
IV. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
Delay in approving the project will result in a delay of design and construction and may jeopardize
funding.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
651 PINE STREET 4TH FLOOR NORTH WING MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553-0095
Telephone: (510) 313-2296 Contact Person: Vickie Germany, Public Works Dept.
Project Description, Common Name (if any) and Location: LAUREL ROAD DETENTION BASIN -
BASEBALL FIELD/PARK, County File #CP 93-76: The project consists of modification to the
existing Laurel Road flood control basin and the acquisition of 2.5 acres of land adjacent to
the existing 10.95 acre detention basin in order to install baseball fields, landscaping,
fencing, irrigation, a parking lot, playground, picnic areas and restroom facilities. The
baseball fields will be installed in the detention basin, and the parking lot, picnic area, and
playground will be constructed on the adjacent 2.5 acres, east of the basin. The facility will
be used as a flood control basin during the rainy season and a recreational facility in the dry
season. Subject location: The project fronts Laurel Road, between O'Hara Avenue and Rose
Avenue in the Oakley area of east Contra Costa County. The area consists of single-family
homes, vacant undeveloped parcels, orchards, and a flood control basin.
The project was approved on
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act:
QAn Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified.
The Project was encompassed by an Environmental Impact Report previously prepared for
Q A Negative Declaration was issued indicating that preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report was not required.
Copies of the record of project approval and the Negative Declaration or the final EIR may be examined at the office of the
Contra Costa County Community Development Department.
QThe Project will not have a significant environmental effect.
QThe Project will have a significant environmental effect.
Mitigation measures were made a condition of approval of the project.
A statement of overriding considerations was adopted.
Findings were adopted pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Date: By:
Community Development Department Representative
AFFIDAVIT OF FILING AND POSTING
I declare that on I received and posted this notice as required by California
Public Resources Code Section 21152(c). Said notice will remain posted for 30 days from the filing date.
Signature Title
Applicant: Department of Fish & Game Fees Due:
County Public Works Department EIR - $850 Total Due: $
255 Glacier Drive Neg. Dec. - $1,250 Total Paid: $
Martinez, CA 94553 V DeMinimis Findings - $0
Attn: Janet Frattini V County Clerk - $25 Receipt J1:
California Environmental Quality Act
NOTICE OF
Completion of Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
85 PPINE STREET NORTH WING-4TH FLOOR MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553-0095
Telephone: (510) 313-2296 Contact Person: Vickie Germany, Public Works Dept.
Project Description and _Location: LAUREL ROAD DETENTION BASIN - BASEBALL
FIELD/PARK, County File #CP 93-76: The project consists of modification to the existing
Laurel Road flood control basin and the acquisition of 2.5 acres of land adjacent to the
existing 10.95 acre detention basin in order to install baseball fields, landscaping, fencing,
irrigation, a parking lot, playground, picnic areas and restroom facilities. The baseball fields
will be installed in the detention basin, and the parking lot, picnic area, and playground will
be constructed on the adjacent 2.5 acres, east of the basin. The facility will be used as a
flood control basin during the rainy season and a recreational facility in the dry season.
Subject location: The project fronts Laurel Road, between O'Hara Avenue and Rose Avenue
in the Oakley area of east Contra Costa County. The area consists of single-family homes,
vacant undeveloped parcels, orchards, and a flood control basin.
t t t � f t . t �► f . . . . �► . . f t p
If you require further information regarding the proiect itself, please contact Mr. Skip Epperly
of the County Public Works Department at (510) 313-2253,. If you have any comments
regarding the environmental review of this Notice, please contact Ms. Vickie Germany at
(510) 313-2296 no later than Friday, January 7, 1994, 5:00 p.m.
t . tt + . tt . . . . . ttt . . ,► f
The Environmental Impact Report or Justification for Negative Declaration is available for
review at the address below:
Contra Costa County Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, North Wing - Fourth Floor
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Review Period for Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration: December 17, 1993
January 7, 1994
By �.
p46:93-76nd.pw Community Development Department Representative
The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. The recommendation is based
on the following summary of the environmental evaluation:
1 . The project will not create unstable earth conditions, changes in geologic substructures
or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic or water related hazards.
2. There are no rare or endangered species of, plants or animals in the project area. The
project will not increase the rate of use of natural resources.
3. The project will not convert prime agricultural land to non-agricultural use or impair the
agricultural productivity of prime agricultural land. The project will not disrupt or divide
the physical arrangement of the community.
4. The project will not degrade the quality of the environment.
5. The project will not have the potential to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of
the long-term environmental goals.
6. Security lights in the park will produce only a minor amount of new light and glare.
Construction activities will create minor, short term, temporary impacts. But no significant
impacts will occur since the following best management practices are incorporated into the
project and in project specifications:
7. There will be no significant change in the air quality of the project area. Construction
machinery and vehicles will emit exhaust fumes and possibly objectionable odors during
construction which may temporarily deteriorate air quality. To minimize the impact, as
well as noise impacts, contract specifications shall stipulate the use of properly tuned and
muffled equipment. Air quality and noise impacts will also be reduced by eliminating
unnecessary idling of machines when not in use. Adherence to standard dust control
practices shall be required in order to reduce air quality impacts and potential for erosion
during construction.
8. Best management practices and limiting work hours to 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, unless modified upon written approval, will also reduce construction noise
levels and shall be incorporated into the construction contract.
9. In order to avoid water quality impacts, construction shall occur during periods of low or
no flow. If water is present, the construction area shall be de-watered by pumping water
through a diversion pipe to be discharged downstream in a non-erosive manner. Erosion
control measures, which minimize water quality impacts, shall be incorporated into
contract specifications.
10. Standard construction safety practices will be followed during construction to ensure no
accidental release of hazardous substances occurs or increase the potential for exposure
to these substances.
11 . The use of traffic control, such as flagging, warning signs, and temporary detours shall
be incorporated into the contract specifications and will minimize•any traffic impacts that
may occur.
CONTRA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
COSTA INITIAL STUDY
COUNTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
FILE#7792-6X5432
CP# q,-?�
PROJECT NAME: Laurel Road Detention Basin - Baseball Field/Park
PREPARED BY: Maureen Toms DATE November 15, 1993
REVIEWED BY: �, okp-k,/ DATE:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
[ ] Categorical Exemption (Class Negative Declaration
[ ] Environment Impact Report Required ( J Conditional Negative Declaration
The project will!not have a sKFvficant effect on the envirorunenL The recomrnenclabon is based
on the following summary of the environmental evaluation:
1. The project will not create unstable earth conditions, changes in geologic substructures
or increase the exposure of people or property to goologic or water related hazards.
2. There are no rare or endangered species of plants or animals in the project area. The
project will not increase the rate of use of.natural resources.
3. The project will not convert prime agricultural land to non-agricultural use or impair the
agricultural productivity.of prime agricultural land. The project will not.disrupt or divide
the physical arrangement of the community.
4. The project will not degrade the quality of the environment.
5. The project will not have the potential to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of
the long-term environmental goals.
6. Security lights in the park will produce only a minor amount of new light and glare.
Construction activities will create minor, short term, temporary impacts. But no significant
impacts will occur since the following best management practices are incorporated into the
project and in project specifications:
7. There will be no significant change in the air quality of the project area. Construction
machinery and vehicles will emit exhaust fumes and possibly objectionable odors during
construction which may temporarily deteriorate air quality. To minimize the impact, as
well as noise impacts,contract specifications shall stipulate the use of properly tuned and
muffled equipment. Air quality and noise impacts will also be reduced by eliminating
unnecessary idling of machines when not in use. Adherence to standard dust control
practices shall be required in order to reduce air quality impacts and potential for erosion
during construction.
8. Best management practices and limiting work hours to 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday.unless modified upon written approval,will also reduce construction noise
levels and shall be incorporated into the construction contract.
9. In order to avoid water quality impacts,construction shall occur during periods of low or
no flow. If water is present,the construction area shall be de-watered by pumping water
through a diversion pipe to be discharged downstream in a non-erosive manner. Erosion
control measures, which minimize water quality impacts, shall be incorporated into
contract specifications.
10. Standard construction safety practices will be followed during construction to ensure no
accidental release of hazardous substances occurs or increase the potential for exposure
to these substances.
Supplement to Environmental Checklist
Laurel Road Detention Basin Baseball Field/Park
Page 2
11. The use of traffic control, such as flagging, warning signs, and temporary detours shall
be incorporated into the contract specifications and will minimize any traffic impacts that
may occur.
What charges to the p"*d would mitigate the idwifiW impacts? N/A
USGS Quad Sheet Brentwood Base Map Sheet H-25 Parcel # 035-220-025
035-220-026
035-220-029
035-220-030
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS:
1. Location:The,project fronts Laurel Road, between O'Hara Avenue and Rose Avenue in
the Oakley area of east Contra Costa County (see Figures 1 and 2). The area consists
of single-family homes,vacant undeveloped parcels,orchards,and 3 flood control basin.
Z Project Description: The project consists of modification to the existing Laurel Road flood
control basin and the acquisition of 2.5 acres of land adjacent to the existing 10.95 acre
detention basin in order to install baseball fields,landscaping,fencing,irrigation,a parking
lot, playground, picnic areas and restroom facilities.
The baseball fields will be installed in the detention basin,and the parking lot,picnic area,
and playground will be constructed on the adjacent 2.5 acres, east of the basin (see
Figure 3). The facility will be used as a flood control basin during the rainy season and
a recreational facility in the dry season.
& Does it appear VuV any feature of the project will generate significant public concern?
[f/]Yes []no []maybe(Nature of Concern):Neighbors have expressed their concerns
about the projects potential lighting, security, noise, and water quality impacts.
4. Will the project require approval or permits by other than a County agency? yes
[V] no
5. Is the,project within the Sphere of Influence of any No
CiMVdVb4Si7L iS
� z
Q
1
C
04
51_
Np
V 3 G
( j
dC COO
C
_T-
W �
W � �
0
di
V[anh 3
CS) -it
` 0 •
3 s T. yQ �" ^M s
i P
/�1 ,,: owl'► '�+►'r�j
d 3NN+ o S303
Z� 1S U ONZ: �.a� G� ��� .�� �. ��� r'r'oC• y0
rt �k✓ '� Wag, -� N ,� � '� �J Ys""_ y '{y�CM
vs
Ilk
�M/�/�' ,b ��� y�- 1'� J .t► w 'Sa.,� r
ts
,.- � vii �« .��• � s a��• ,,,� �
N
A,� � -Moi► �,�• ON ,
71
W
ro
as
`m
O U
— 'C
CL
O U
Q
3
U a !J? I
W � 6
cu
>fF c i
N o x V
cn
ro
y a
c -
14
f+
as
t /
�S
• @ Qo
_ - o
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
I. Background
1. Name of Proponent: Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 255 Glacier Drive
Martinez, CA 94553-4897
(510) 313-2000
3. Date of Checklist Submitted: November 15, 1993
4. Name of Proposal: Laurel Road Detention Basin - Ballfield and Park
II. Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all significant, (S), answers are required on attached sheets.)
*S *1
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? _ ✓
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the
soil? ✓
C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? _ ✓
d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic
or physical features? _ ✓
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on
or off the site? ✓
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of
a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet
or lake? ✓
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such
as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or
similar hazards? ✓
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? _ ✓
2
b. The creation of objectionable odors? . _ ✓
C. Alternation of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change
in climate, either locally or regionally? _ ✓
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements,
in either marine or fresh waters? _ ✓
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount
of surface runoff? _ ✓
C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? _ ✓
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? _ ✓
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water
quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity? _ ✓
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? _ ✓
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions
or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations? _ ✓
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available
for public water supplies? _ ✓
i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as
flooding or tidal waves? _ ✓
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants
(including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, -and aquatic plants)? _ ✓
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare.or
endangered species of plants? _ ✓
C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier
to the normal replenishment of existing species? _ Of
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? _ ✓
*Please Note: "s" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant.
3
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)? _ ✓
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered
species of animals? _ ✓
C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in
a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? _ ✓
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? _ ✓
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? _ ✓
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? _ ✓
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? _ ✓
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present
or planned land use of an area? _ ✓
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? _ ✓
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or upset.conditions? ✓
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan? _ ✓
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of an area? _ ✓
*Please Note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant.
4
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing? _ ✓
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? ✓
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? _ ✓
C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? _ ✓
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement
of people and/or goods? _ ✓
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? _ ✓
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? _ ✓
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? _ ✓
b. Police protection? _ ✓
C. Schools? ✓
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? ✓
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? ✓
f. Other governmental services? _ ✓
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?. _ ✓
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new sources of energy? _ ✓
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to utilities? ✓
*Please Note: "8" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant.
5
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)? _ ✓
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? _ ✓
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to public view? _ ✓
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities? _ ✓
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the destruction of a
prehistoric or historic archaeological site? _ ✓
b. Will the proposal result in adverse.physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? _ ✓
C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? _ ✓
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? _ ✓
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory? _ ✓
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact
on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive
period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) — ✓
*Please Note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant.
6
C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more
separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively
small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the
environment is significant.) _ ✓
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause -
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? _ ✓
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation. (see attachment)
IV. Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
0 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on
an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE
PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Date ignaturp
eviewed By:
Kzat
dm=Nbwin.ck
*Please Note: "s" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant.
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
LAUREL ROAD DETENTION BASIN - BASEBALL FIELD/PARK
The project fronts Laurel Road, between O'Hara Avenue and Rose Avenue in the Oakley area
of east Contra Costa County (see Figures 1 and 2). The project consists of modification to the
existing Laurel Road flood control basin and the acquisition of 2.5 acres of land adjacent to the
existing 10.95 acre detention basin in order to install baseball fields, landscaping, fencing,
irrigation, a parking lot, playground, picnic areas and restroom facilities.
The baseball fields will be installed in the detention basin, and the parking lot, picnic area, and
playground will be constructed on the adjacent 2.5 acres, east of the basin (see Figure 3). The
facility will be used as a flood control basin during the rainy season and a recreational facility
in the dry season.
In the process of preparing the Checklist and conducting the evaluation, the following resources
were reviewed:
1. Contra Costa County Resource Mapping System (October 1992)
2. The County General Plan and EIR on General Plan (January 1991)
3. Landscape Guidelines for the Community of Oakley
4. Hazardous Materials Assessment (December 1, 1992)
5. Oakley Parks Master Plan (August 1993)
6. Field Visits (April 29 and July 6, 1993)
7. Correspondence with the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (September 29, 1993)
1. Earth
(A, D - G) Review of the County Resource Mapping System did not identify any unique geologic
or physical features. The minor grading of the surface will not result in unstable earth conditions
or changes in geologic substructures, nor increase the exposure to geologic hazards. The
Antioch Fault, which is in the State Special Studies Zone, is approximately 3 miles west of the
project area. The Brentwood Fault and the Davis Fault are approximately one mile and 2.5
miles, respectively, west of the project area. According to the General Plan the project area has
a generally high liquefaction potential and has a moderate damage susceptibility as a result of
seismic activity. The project will not result in the exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards.
According to the County Resource Mapping System, Delhi Sand is found in the project area.
The project will temporarily increase the exposure of the sand to wind and water erosion during
the construction phase, but this impact is minor and.temporary. Adherence to standard dust
and erosion control practices including, but not limited to general watering of exposed areas,
use of chemical stabilizers, and constructing the project during periods of low or no flow will
minimize this impact. If water is present, the construction area shall be de-watered by pumping
water through a diversion pipe to be discharged downstream in a non-erosive manner. Dust and
erosion control measures shall be incorporated into the construction contract.
(B - C) The proposed project includes covering-the bottom of the basin with approximately one
to two feet of clean soil in order to establish baseball fields. The bottom of the basin will be
altered so runoff during the dry season will not pond on the baseball fields. The change of
Supplement To Environmental Checklist
Laurel Road Detention Basin - Ball Field
November 15, 1993
Page 2
ground surface relief and the amount of fill proposed for the basin are minor and will not result
in a significant impact.
2. Air
(A - B) Short-term emissions and objectionable odors are generated during construction
activities, but they are minor and temporary. To minimize this impact, contract specifications
shall stipulate the use of properly tuned and muffled equipment, and eliminating unnecessary
idling of machines when not in use. Implementation of dust control practices noted in #1 - Earth
(A, D - G), will also reduce air quality impacts.
(C) The proposed project will not result in the alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate.
3. Water
(A- 1) According to the County Resource Mapping System, the project is in a flood hazard area,
however, the project itself will not expose people or property to water related hazards. The
Laurel Road Detention Basin holds storm water runoff, which reduces the hazard of downstream
flooding during peak flows. The basin will continue to retain peak flows during the rainy season,
when the baseball fields are not in use. The basin will be fenced during the rainy season to
prevent use of the baseball fields when the basin is being used for flood,control purposes. Low
flows will no longer enter the basin, but will be piped around the basin to the outfall structure.
According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act does not
apply to the Laurel Road Detention Basin since it is a human-made basin, constructed for the
purpose of flood control.
A public water supply will not be affected as a result of the project. The project will not affect
any marine or fresh waters, or groundwater. According to the Hazardous Materials Assessment
report prepared by Subsurface Consultants, the basin does not contain buried hazardous
materials that could impact the quality of ground or surface water. In order to avoid water
quality impacts, dust and erosion control measures discussed in 41 - Earth (A, D - G), shall be
incorporated into contract specifications.
4. Plant Life
(A - D) The County Resource Mapping System, field review and RAREFIND data base showed
no unique, threatened, or endangered species of plants in the project area. Wetland vegetation
is establishing in part of the detention basin. The existing vegetation in the basin will be
replaced with grass for the baseball fields. The loss of existing wetland vegetation is not a
.significant impact since the basin is human-made and as mentioned in #3 - Water, is not in the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The 2.5 acre parcel adjacent to the flood
Supplement To Environmental Checklist
Laurel Road Detention Basin - Ball Field
November 15, 1993
Page 3
control basin is vacant and contains weedy species. Landscaping (e.g. groundcover, shrubs,
and trees) will be planted on level areas of the site, generally between the top of the basin banks
and the property lines to the west and north of the basin, as well as, other areas of the site (see
Figure 3). Landscaping plants will consist of water conserving trees, shrubs, groundcovers, and
grasses. Native, riparian trees and plants will be planted in the southeast area of the basin
which is labeled "riparian area" on Figure #3. The proposed project will not result in the
reduction of acreage of any agricultural crop-(see #8 - Land Use).-%.)t,\h�<dXpLk,-4-U Sol I iLl(ae
I r�- �c,*- c -cc�., cons s-� c�f 5cv4-4`^°A exc e Ss�� drop� Wok` and- VW
. tpc�� 6rk r � J'S ax\d i� pct- h o���-� far wc,-kl a j�1 aAt and a�Lw� '�k .
5. Animal Uf one o� c� ct�tr�c ks tv be �y&xc.ci a u I a�a cif
1c�� ��e cf� ('.e?�l�.t�'�iape navuL1 P �- Ur,yea ra:tt un e t��Y�O,-1 G�nUk(A - D) The project will not encroach upon habitat of any unique, threatened or endangered
species of animals according to the County Resource Mapping System, field review and
RAREFIND data base. Migratory birds sometimes inhabit the partially flooded basin. During the
rainy season, the flooded basin will continue to provide habitat for migratory birds. When the
basin is converted to baseball fields, the drainage will be reconfigured to create a riparian area
along the southeast corner of the basin, which will provide habitat for wildlife. The projects
landscaping will also provide habitat for wildlife. The project will not result in the introduction of
new species of animals, nor will it result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals.
6. Noise
(A) The County Resource Mapping System for the project area indicates a noise level of 65 dBA
for the year 2005 on Laurel Road, between O'Hara Avenue and Rose Avenue. The project will
result in increased noise levels for the site during the hours of operation. However, the impact
to residences adjacent to the site will be minimized by not providing pedestrian walkways
around the entire basin and by landscaping the area between the top of the basin bank and the
property lines, which will act as a buffer and discourage people from using the areas. The park
hours will be the from dawn to dusk, which will not result in an increase of noise levels at night.
(B) In general, construction activities produce noise levels of 86 dBA at 50 feet, which is well
below the threshold of pain of 120-140 dBA. Best management practices noted in #2 - Air (A -
B), and limiting work hours to 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, unless modified
upon written approval, reduce construction noise levels and shall be incorporated as into the
construction contract.
7. Light and Glare
No lighting of the facility, other than required security lighting, will be installed. Security lights
in the park will produce a minor, insignificant amount of new light and glare. The security lights
will be directed away from residences adjacent to the project site.
Supplement To Environmental Checklist
Laurel Road Detention Basin - Ball Field
November 15, 1993
Page 4
8. Land Use
According to the General Plan, the project is located within a urban limit area. The Oakley Parks
and Master Plan states the importance of developing a large scale community park due to the
high rate of growth in Oakley. The project is consistant with General Plan Goals (Goal 7-R) and
Policies (Policies 7-38, 7-48, and 7-58) regarding flood control basins. The existing land uses
within the project area include the flood control detention basin and vacant undeveloped land.
The surrounding land uses include older, single-family homes, agricultural uses, and vacant
undeveloped parcels, zoned single-family residential medium and high density. The 2.5 acres
to be acquired for the project is currently vacant and is part of a 16.83 acres property which is
zoned single-family residential medium density (a General Plan Amendment to change the
zoning to single-family residential high density is pending). The existing flood control basin,
once modified, will be used jointly as a flood control basin and recreation facility.
9. Natural Resources
Implementation of the project will involve the use of paving materials (i.e. asphalt for the parking
lot) which will not significantly impact this resource. The use of oil and gasoline to operate the
machinery for construction purposes is negligible and of a short term, temporary nature. Best
management practices noted in #2 - Air (A - B) will also minimize the consumption of natural
resources during construction. A minor amount of gasoline and oil will be used during regular
maintenance of the park. Water will also be used for irrigating the baseball field and other park
landscaping, and electricity will be used to for the security lighting of the facility, however this
is not a significant impact since the project is located within an existing utility service area.
10. Risk of Upset
(A) The County Resource Mapping Systems identified a major PG&E power line along O'Hara
Avenue and a Shell pipeline along Laurel Road. Per standard specifications, standard
construction safety practices will be followed during construction to ensure no accidental release
of hazardous substances occurs or increase the potential for exposure to these substances.
No significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances is foreseen. The
Hazardous Materials Assessment conducted for the project indicated that no hazardous
materials were buried in the basin as previously suspected.
(B) Providers of emergency services will be notified of any traffic detours so no interference with
an emergency evacuation will result from the project (see #13 - Transportation/Circulation
(C - E).
Supplement To Environmental Checklist
Laurel Road Detention Basin - Ball Field
November 15, 1993
Page 5
11 & 12. Population & Housing
The project will not alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of human population
in the area. The project will provide a much needed recreational area for the community and
is consistent with the County General Plan and the Oakley Parks Master Plan.
13. Transportation/Circulation
(A, B & F) The project will increase the traffic level on nearby streets during the construction
.phase, as well as, during hours the facility is open to the public. However this is an insignificant
impact since the General Plan has designated Laurel Road as an existing arterial and the County
has plans to upgrade the roadway. As mentioned in # 8 - Land Use, the project is located
within an urban limit area. The project will create a demand for new parking, however the
parking lot included in the project will provide the necessary parking spaces.
(C - E) The project will not have a substantial impact on the existing transportation system or
alter circulation of traffic. During the construction of the project, equipment and construction
activities may inhibit smooth circulation, but the use of traffic control, such as flagging, warning
signs, and temporary detours shall be incorporated into the contract specifications and will
minimize this impact. The project will not alter waterborne, rail or air traffic as no water, rail or
air transportation and facilities are located in the immediatevicinity of the project area.
14. Public Services
(A, C, & D) The basin improvements will not increase the need for fire protection or schools.
Existing park acreage is limited and inadequate for the projected growth of the community. This
project would add approximately 13.5 acres of park land to the community.
(B & E) The improvements may increase the need for police protection, however the need for
police protection will be reduced since the hours of operation will be limited, and security lights
and fencing will be provided. There will be no access to the baseball fields during the rainy
season, when the basin will be used for flood control purposes. The park will be maintained by
the County, using funds from the Landscape and Lighting Assessment District Park Zone 16.
15. Energy
(A - B) Minor amounts of non-renewable fuel resources will be consumed during construction,
but this is a short-term, temporary impact. This impact will be reduced to an insignificant level
by eliminating unnecessary idling of machines when not in use and by using properly tuned
equipment as mentioned in #2 - Air (A - C) and #9 - Natural Resources. Minor amounts of
energy will be used (irrigation pump, security lights, etc.) once the project is complete.
Supplement To Environmental Checklist
Laurel Road Detention Basin - Ball Field
November 15, 1993
Page 6
16. Utilities
The project will not result in the need for new utility systems or substantial alterations to existing
utilities. The proposed project will need utility services, which is not a significant impact since
the proposed project is within existing urban service boundaries.
17. Human Health
(A - B) The basin will be be fenced during the rainy season to prevent use of the baseball fields
and reduce the risk of drowning when the basin is being used for flood control purposes (see
#2 - Water and #14 - Public Services (B & E). The proposed project has the potential to
release hazardous substances during construction. Potential health hazards due to accidental
petroleum spills will be minimized by following best management practices noted in #10 (A) -
Risk of Upset. Air quality which could affect human health can be minimized by the measures
noted in #2 - Air and #6 - Noise. The Hazardous Materials Assessment conducted for the
project indicated that evidence of unknown materials, reported buried on the site, could not be
found.
18. Aesthetics
The project will not result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public. The
sight of construction equipment may be visually unattractive, but this is a minor and temporary
impact. The park will create an aesthetically pleasing environment to the community.
19. Recreation
The County Resource Mapping System and the field review did not identify any existing
recreational opportunities in the project area. The project will provide much needed recreational
opportunities to the community.
20. Cultural Resources
(A- D) According to the County Resource Mapping System no historical or archaeological sites
exist in the project vicinity. No ethnic groups or religious organizations are in the area of the
proposed project.
21. Mandatory Findings of Siqnificance
(A - D) There is no substantial evidence that the project will degrade habitat for plants or
animals or eliminate major periods of California history or prehistory as evidenced by the
Supplement To Environmental Checklist
Laurel Road Detention Basin - Ball Field
November 15, 1993
Page 7
discussion for items #4 (A - D); 5 (A- D); & 20 (A - D). The project does not have the potential
to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The project
does not have any cumulative impacts. The project will not have a substantial adverse impact
on humans, as long as the suggestions for items 2 (A - B); 6 (A - B); 10 (A - B); and 13 (A,
B & F) are implemented.
c:laureAlbashsum
Contra Costa County
J. Michael WaHord
FLOOD CONTROL ex officio Chief Engineer
• ��\\ ` t Milton F. KubiceK Deputy Chief
& Water Conservation District 255 Glacier Drive,Martinez,CA 94553-4897
'�,„•.iw{ Telephone:(510)313-2000
FAX:(510)313-2333
March 8, 1994
Mr. Frederick Del Barba
Rr 4 Box 351
Oakley, CA 94561
Dear Mr. Del Barba:
Thank you for your response to the December 17, 1993, "Notice of Intent to Adopt a
Negative Declaration"for the proposed Laurel Road Detention Basin - Baseball Field/Park
project, CP# 93-76. We apologize for not responding earlier. Following are responses
to the questions raised in your January 3, 1994, letter.
You expressed a concern about,people trespassing onto your property, resulting in an
accumulation of garbage, damage to young vines and an irrigation system, and the
liability if someone gets hurt on your property. There will be no direct access from the
ballfield/park to your property, since the ballfield/park will be fenced with a 6-foot cyclone
fence, with the only entrance on Laurel Road. The design of the ballfield is such that balls
are hit toward the center of the basin, however we cannot guarantee that park users will
not hit baseballs into neighboring areas. Trespassing and liability laws would apply in the
event this becomes a problem. These issues are not the responsibility of the District and
are not a significant impact to the environment.
The project is scheduled to go before the Board of Supervisors on March 22, 1994. If
you have any questions, please contact me at (510) 313-2296.
Sincerely,
Vickie Germany
Environmental Planner
Design Division
VG:mat
cc: T.Torlakson, Supervisor-District 5
M. Hollingsworth, Design
S. Epperly,Administrative Services
B. Heitmeyer, SDC/Site Development Consultants
P. Harrington, Flood Control
D. Freitas, NPDES
c:\Iaurel\delbarba.rsp
RECEIVED'
JAN 5 'G94
Contra Costa County
J. Michael Walford
T FLOOD CONTROL ex officio Chief Engineer
: Milton F. Kubicek,Deputy Chief
& Water Conservation District 255 Glacier Drive,Martinez,CA 94553-4897
Mtn" s+'' Telephone:(510)313-2000
FAX:(510)313-2333
March 8, 1994
Ms. Gladine Osterberger .
850 O'Hara Court
Oakley, CA 94561
Dear Ms. Osterberger:
Thank you for your response to the December 17, 1993, "Notice of Intent to Adopt a
Negative Declaration"for the proposed Laurel Road Detention Basin - Baseball Field/Park
project, CP# 93-76. We apologize for not responding earlier. Following are responses,
arranged by topic, to questions raised in your December 30, 1993, letter.
Noise
Comment noted.
Although existing noise levels will increase with the proposed park, the levels are not
significant. A park is a compatible use of land in both residential and commercial areas
(see response to Land Use comments, below).
The Contra Costa County General Plan 1990- 2005 (General Plan) contains existing and
future.noise levels, which are typically used for planning purposes. The 2005 noise level
for Laurel Road, between O'Hara Avenue and Rose Avenue is 65 dBA. The General Plan
also states that proper site planning is the first mitigation measure.that should be
investigated to reduce noise impacts. By taking advantage of the natural shape and
terrain of a site, it is often possible to arrange buildings and other uses in a manner that
will reduce and possibly eliminate noise impacts. The terrain of the basin enables the
area between the basin bottom and the top to attenuate noise, unlike the topography of
the two schools noted in your letter. A specific site planning technique includes
increasing the distance between the noise source and the receiver (General Plan, pp. 11-
45 to 11-46). A buffer area between the basin top and the property lines will provide the
distance between the noise source and the receiver. The pedestrian walkway will not be
located in this buffer area. Several species of trees and shrubs have been discussed for
planting in this area, including species with thorns which would discourage pedestrians
from using the area. It is expected that this will be an effective deterrent to pedestrian
traffic in the buffer area as soon as the landscaping is installed. In addition, signs stating
"Do Not Disturb the Landscaping" may be placed along the perimeter of this area.
Organized groups using the field will also be advised that this area is.off-limits. Regular
maintenance of the park, including the field and other planted areas of the park will
ensure that the plantings will be successful. The park will be maintained by the County,
using funds from the Landscape and Lighting Assessment District - Park Zone 16.
Response to Comments - Laurel Road Detention Basin - Ballfield/Park
Ms. Gladine Osterberger
March 8, 1994
Page 2
Soundwalls have not been considered for use along the perimeter of the ballfield/park
because they would block the visibility of the flood control basin from all quadrants.
In addition, since the increase in noise levels are not significant, soundwalls are not
required. Noise will be controlled by the hours of park usage. The park hours will be
from dawn to dusk, which will not result in an increase of noise levels at night, when
residences are most sensitive to noise (see Environmental Evaluation #6-Noise; #7-Light
and Glare; and #14-Public Services). The project is consistent with suggested noise
mitigation measures #4.6-14(I), (m), and (n) in the Draft Environmental Impact Report for
the General Plan.
Light and Glare
Comment noted.
Security lights will produce a minor, insignificant amount of new light and glare, and will
be directed away from the residences. The ballfield and park will be closed and not
accessible at night (see Environmental Evaluation #6-Noise; #7-Light and Glare; and#14
Public Services). Security lights discourage the activities noted in your letter, and enable
the park to be visible from the street resulting in more effective surveillance.
Land Use
Opinion noted.
The proposed project is in an area which is undergoing suburbanizatiom The eastern 9.6
acres of the site is zoned single-family residential and the western 3.85 acres of the site
is zoned commercial. The surrounding area is also single-family residential and
commercial. A publicly owned park and playground is a permitted use in both the
residential and commercial districts. The Laurel Road Detention Basin site.was identified
in the Oakley Area General Plan and the Oakley Parks Master Plan as a site for a dual
use flood control basin/park. The proposed project is also consistent with the following
General Plan policies:
pg. 7-35, Policy 7-48 Open bypass channels, detention basins and all drainage
facility rights-of-way which are provided at different locations in order to
supplement existing natural creeks should be developed as an asset to the
development, e.g., as a secondary recreational use.
pg. 7-36, Policy 7-58 Detention basins shall be designed for multiple uses such
as parks and playing fields when not in use for holding water...
The proposed Laurel Road Detention Basin/Ballfield - Park will have a primary use as a
flood control basin with a secondary use as a recreational facility. Only minor and
insignificant modifications to the existing basin are necessary to accommodate the park.
Response to Comments'- Laurel Road Detention Basin - Ballfield/Park
Ms. Gladine Osterberger
March 8, 1994
Page 3
Transportation/Circulation
Comments noted.
Per your comment regarding the existing condition of Laurel Road, the, General Plan
identifies Laurel Road as an arterial. Although Laurel Road does not currently meet
arterial standards, it is planned to serve future traffic capacity needs. The Laurel Road
improvements are programmed to be completed in 1996-97(H. Ballanger, Transportation
Engineering, 1-18-94). Park construction is planned for 1995, with maximum usage
estimated to be several years later when the Oakley area is built-out. Residential
development, development of the park, and improvements to Laurel Road are going on
concurrently,which is the process of suburbanization. Adding minor vehicular, pedestrian
and bicycle traffic to Laurel Road is not a substantial increase to an arterial roadway.
Public Services
Comments noted.
The park hours will be the from dawn to dusk, and security lights and fencing will be
provided (see Environmental Evaluation #6-Noise, #7-Light and Glare, and #14-Public
Services). Security lights will allow the park to be visible from Laurel Road, resulting in
more effective surveillance from law enforcement personnel.
Recreation
Comment noted.
The existing ballfields at O'Hara and Oakley Schools are used to capacity. As mentioned
above, the terrain of the basin enables the area between the basin bottom and the top
to attenuate noise, unlike the topography of the two schools. The proposed project is
consistent with the General Plan goal of achieving a level of park facilities of four acres
per 1,000 population, as well as the policies listed under Land Use, above. The proposed
park will provide recreational services to the surrounding neighborhoods, which as of
November 1, 1991 had a cumulative built-out percentage of 42%. The proposed Laurel
Road Detention Basin/Ballfield-Park is identified in the Oakley Area General Plan and the
Oakley Parks Master Plan.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Comments noted.
The effects of noise and traffic on humans are within the projected noise and traffic levels
for an area undergoing suburbanization. Based on the Environmental Evaluation, there
is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on humans.
Response to Comments - Laurel Road Detention Basin - Ballfield/Park
Ms. Gladine Osterberger
March 8, 1994
Page 4
In summary, no substantial evidence has been submitted to counter our determination.
The project is scheduled to go before the Board of Supervisors on March 22, 1994. If
you have any questions, please contact me at (510) 313-2296.
Sincerely,
Vickie Germany
Environmental Planner
Design Division
VG:mat
cc: T.Torlakson,Supervisor-District 5
M. Hollingsworth, Design
S.Epperly,Administrative Services
B. Heitmeyer, SDC/Site Development Consultants
P. Harrington, Flood Control
D. Freitas, NPDES
c:\IaureRosterber.rsp
..........
RECEIVED
JAN 3
December 30, 1993 PLANNER
Ms. Vickie Germany , Public Works Dept.
255 Glacier Drive
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Notice of Negative Declaration of Environment Significance
Laurel Road Detention Basin - Baseball Field/Park
County File #CP 93-76
Dear Ms. Germany,
Following are my comments, questions and concerns in response to
your Notice as mentioned above.
Figure 2 map is not up to date. The entire north boundary of
this basin is bordered by homes. The west boundary wraps around
2 sides of a home. Part of the south boundary has a housing
development across the street (Laurel Rd. ) .
II Environmental Impacts
6. Noise.
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
You can't be serious that changing a detention basin to a
baseball field and park with the potential of 90 cars and
360 plus people at one time is an insignificant impact on
the environment.
7 . Light and Glare.
This would depend on how many lights were installed.
S. Land Use.
In my opinion, changing a detention basin to a baseball
field and .park 415 a substantial alteration of land use.
13. Transportation/Circulation.
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement?
I would say that an increase of 90 cars- at one time in this
area is substantial .
f . Increase in traffic hazards?
The additional 90 cars could be a definite hazard to the
also increased number of bicyclists and pedestrians on a
two lane road with no sidewalks or bike 1--nes.
14. Public Services.
b. Police Protection?
Entire area including' res
area picnic aand trooms should be
I - -
enclosed behind a fence and locked at night. The County
hasn't time or money to patrol sufficiently to -.--even*.
vandalism.
21 . Mandatory Findings of Significance.
d. Does- the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, -either
directly or indirectly?
As mentioned above, noise, traffic hazards and security
are significant concerns and could definitely have a
substantial adverse effect on human beings.
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
6. Noise
(A) No pedestrian walkways around the entire basin will not
do a thin-, to minimize the noise of the ball players and
cheering spectators. There is no mention as to what kind
of trees are to be a buffer. How many years will they need
to grow to be effective? The adjacent residents asked for
a. security and sound wall . Will there be access to any
area at night? Your language concerning this is not
precise.
7 . light and Glare
If there is access to any part of the area at night,
security lights only invite trouble such as individuals
consuming alcohol , using dope and leaving dirty needles,
and the possibility of finding used condoms.
13. Transportation/Circulation
(A, Q- & F) If the County plans to upgrade Laurel Rd. , I
suggest waiting until this is done as it currently is not
safe for the increased auto, bicycle and pedestrian traffic
this project would create.
14. Public Services
(B & E) It is still not -clear whether the entire area will
be secured at night. As mentioned earlier, if the
restrooms and picnic area are not surrounded by a security
fence there could be major problems.
19 . Recreation
I do not know what you consider the project area, but there
is a ball field and park at O'Hara Park School at the
corner of O'Hara Ave . and Cypress St. This is close enough
that the noise from that ball field and park is clearly
heard at the Laurel Road Detention Basin.
21 . Mandatory Findings of Significance
(A & D) You have done a good job addressing the possible
degrading of the habitat for animals and plants, but you
have not properly addressed the effect of noise and traffic
on humans. You state this project :•rill not have a
substantial adverse impact on humans. I wonder if you
would have reached the same conclusion if this detention
basin were adjacent to your home. My home does not border
this detention basin but it is.,- located between it and the
ball field/park at O'Hara and Cypress. As mentioned
earlier the noise from O'Hara Park reaches the detention
basin on Laurel Rd. and is quite loud at my home. Please
consider the noise level in the overlapping area when there
is a game being played at both fields at the same time.
Sincerely,
Gladine Osterberger
850 O'Hara Court
Oakley, CA 94561
CCWTA
Contra Costa County
J. Michael Welford
t FLOOD CONTROL
�\ ex officio Chief Engineer
L Milton F. KubiceK Deputy Chief
& Water Conservation District 255 Glacier Drive,Martinez,CA 94553-4897
Telephone:(510)313-2000
March 8, 1994 FAX:(510)313-2333
Mr. Ed Vinecour
851 O'Hara Court
Oakley, CA 94561
Dear Mr. Vinecour:
Thank you for your response to the December 17, 1993, "Notice of Intent to Adopt a
Negative Declaration"for the proposed Laurel Road Detention Basin- Baseball Field/Park
project, CP# 93-76. We apologize for not responding earlier. Following are responses,
arranged by topic, to questions raised in your January 3, 1994, letter.
Human Health
Comments noted.
In response to your comment regarding possible health risks to children playing in the
basin, topsoil for the ballfields and sand for the play lot will be imported to the site. The
basin will continue to retain peak flows during the rainy season, when the baseball fields
are not in use. The basin will be fenced to prevent use of the baseball fields when the
basin is being used for flood control purposes. Low flows will no longer flow over the
bottom of the basin, but will be piped from the inlet structure to the outfall structure; thus,
the introduction of urban runoff into the basin during the period the ballfields are in use
will be avoided. The exposure of children to health risks in the proposed ballfield-park
are expected to be much lower than the hazards children are exposed to in their own
yards (per one of the articles attached to your January 3, 1994, letter).
Per your comment regarding the"right to know", stormwater is not on the Governor's List
of Carcinogens and Reproductive Toxins, therefore the proposed Laurel Road Detention
Basin/Ballfield - Park does not meet the criteria for posting a warning under the provisions
of Proposition 65. In our administrative record we have no documented information of
health hazards at any of the flood control basins with secondary uses (i.e., Fresno and
Lodi dual use basins). The 1992, Curtis and Tomkins soil analysis for the Laurel Basin
showed levels above the reporting limit for barium, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, copper,
nickel, vanadium and zinc. However, the levels found are far below the State threshold,
and are no different than background levels found in the vicinity (J. Alexander, 2-15-94);
thus, the stormwater runoff is within State thresholds and not considered hazardous.
Further risk analysis for the proposed project was not pursued due to the conclusion of
the soil analysis and lack of documented evidence on health hazards in dual use basins.
Per your comment regarding the chances of petroleum products, nitrates, heavy metals,
pesticides, herbicides, etc., washing into the basin, the Stormwater Pollution Control
Program has been established to comply with the 1990, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency regulations requiring urban cities and counties to reduce stormwater pollution.
The Program's mission is to reduce stormwater pollution in a variety of ways, including
Response to Comments - Laurel Road Detention Basin - Ballfield/Park
Mr. Ed Vinecour
March 8, 1994
Page 2
eliminating illegal dumping and educating the public. An illegal discharge elimination
program will be established to reduce contaminants from entering stormwater runoff.
Inspectors will collect and test samples in the field when pollutants are suspected in
creeks or runoff. If Laurel Basin presents a water quality concern or illegal discharges
are suspected, the program would dispatch inspectors to investigate the area. The
education aspect of the program includes the publication of a pamphlet advising the
public that storm drains empty directly to the bay and delta.
Animal Life
Comments noted.
The proposed project will not emit hazardous materials into Marsh Creek or any other
body of water above that which would normally occur in the area due to stormwater
runoff. Although there exists a chance of storm water pollution draining into Marsh Creek,
it is not significant. As discussed above, inspectors from the illegal discharge elimination
program will collect and test samples in the field when pollutants are suspected in creeks
or runoff.
According to the CEQA guidelines, Section 15073(b), a copy of the notice with the
proposed Negative Declaration shall be sent to every Responsible Agency and Trustee
Agency concerned with the project and every other public agency with jurisdiction by law
over resources affected by the project. The Department of Fish and Game is not a
trustee agency for this project, therefore a copy of the notice was not provided.
Water
Comments noted.
In addition to our evaluation of the effect on a public water supply, the Environmental
Evaluation examined the effect on any marine or fresh waters, or ground water and
determined that there would be no significant impact (see Environmental Evaluation #3-
Water): As mentioned under Human Health, we have no documented information of
health hazards at any of the flood control basins with secondary uses. Only a minimal
amount of fertilizer will be used on the baseball fields and it would be applied in
accordance with applicable laws. A water base paint will be used instead of lime for the
base lines of the baseball field. Numerous studies have shown that agricultural practices
pose a greater threat to water quality than lawn fertilizer.
Per your comment regarding the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Corps
enforces Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as it applies to wetlands and does not
pertain to water quality standards. The Corps was contacted regarding their jurisdiction
of the basin and it was concluded that the Corps does not have jurisdiction of this site
because it was constructed in an upland area for the purpose of flood control.
Response to Comments - Laurel Road Detention Basin - Ballfield/Park
Mr. Ed Vinecour
March 8, 1994
' 'Page 3
Transportation/Circulation
Comment noted.
Per your comment regarding the existing condition of Laurel Road, the General Plan
identifies Laurel Road as an arterial. Although Laurel Road does not currently meet
arterial standards, it is planned to serve future traffic capacity needs. The Laurel Road
improvements are programmed to be completed in 1996-97 (H. Ballanger,Transportation
Engineering, 1-18-94). Park construction is planned for 1995, with maximum usage
estimated to be several years later when the Oakley area is built-out. Residential
development, development of the park, and improvements to Laurel Road are going on
concurrently,which is the process of suburbanization. Adding minor vehicular, pedestrian
and bicycle traffic to Laurel Road is not a substantial increase to an arterial roadway.
Noise
Comments noted.
Although existing noise levels will increase with the proposed park, the levels are not
significant. The eastern 9.6 acres of the site is zoned single-family residential and the
western 3.85 acres of the site is zoned commercial. The surrounding area is also zoned
for commercial (on the north side of the Laurel Road/O'Hara Avenue intersection) and
single-family residential. A publicly owned park and playground is a compatible and
permitted use in both the residential and commercial districts.
Per your comment regarding noise levels, the Contra Costa County General Plan 1990 -
2005 (General Plan) contains existing and future noise levels, which are typically used for
planning purposes. The 2005 noise level for Laurel Road, between O'Hara Avenue and
Rose Avenue is 65 dBA.
Per your comment regarding minimizing noise impacts, the General Plan also states that
proper site planning is the first mitigation measure that should be investigated to reduce
noise impacts. By taking advantage of the natural shape and terrain of a site, it is often
possible to arrange buildings and other uses in a manner that will reduce and possibly
eliminate noise impacts. A specific site planning technique includes increasing the
distance between the noise source and the receiver (General Plan, pp. 11-45 to 11-46).
A buffer area between the basin top and the property lines will provide the distance
between the noise source and the receiver. The pedestrian walkway will not be located
in this buffer area. Several species of trees and shrubs have been discussed for planting
in this area, including species with thorns which would discourage pedestrians from using
the area. The terrain of the basin enables the area between the basin bottom and the top
to attenuate noise, unlike the topography of the two schools. In addition, signs stating
"Do Not Disturb the Landscaping" may be placed along the perimeter of this area.
Organized groups using the field will also be advised that this area is off-limits. Regular
maintenance of the park, including the field and other planted areas of the park will
Response to Comments - Laurel Road Detention Basin - Ballfield/Park
Mr. Ed Vinecour
March 8, 1994
Page 4
ensure that the plantings will be successful. The park will be maintained by the County,
using funds from the Landscape and Lighting Assessment District - Park Zone 16.
Noise will be controlled by the hours of park usage. The park hours will be from dawn
to dusk, which will not result in an increase of noise levels at night, when residences are
most sensitive to noise (see Environmental Evaluation #6-Noise; #7-Light and Glare; and
#14-Public Services). The project is consistent with suggested noise mitigation measures
in the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan (see Proposed Mitigation
Measures #4.6-14(I), (m), and (n).
The map used in the CEQA document (Figure 2) is used for purposes of locating the
project site. It was not the intention of this figure to show surrounding land uses.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Comments noted.
Per your comment regarding the "unsampled outfall' and articles from professional
f magazines, please see our responses under Human Health,.Animal Life, and Water.
In summary, the project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment. Based on the Environmental Evaluation, there is no substantial evidence
that the project will have a significant effect on humans. No substantial evidence has
been submitted to counter our determination. The project is scheduled to go before the
Board of Supervisors on March 22, 1994. 'If you have any questions, please contact me
at (510) 313-2296.
Sincerely,
Vickie Germany
Environmental Planner
Design Division
VG:mat
cc: T.Torlakson, Supervisor-District 5
M. Hollingsworth, Design
S. Epperly,Administrative Services
B. Heitmeyer, SDC/Site Development Consultants
P. Harrington, Flood Control
D. Freitas, NPDES
c:\IaureRvinecour.rsp
RECEI D
DATE: January 3, 1994 JAN 'iVED
iC
PL
,5
TO: Ms. Vickie Germany, Public Works Department r
EMM%WWAL PLANNER
FROM: Ed Vinecour
851 O'Hara Ct. -
Oakley, CA 94561
(510) 625-2920
RE: Public Works Department Initial Study of Environmental Significant File #
7792 6X5432 CP# 93-76 Laurel Road Dentition Basin Baseball Field/Park.
and CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
In my opinion there are numerous topics in the CEQA Environmental Checklist that
have had very limited discussion or completely overlooked such as:,
Human Health
There was no mention of the possible health risks to the children playing in the basin
from possible containments washed into the basin with runoff from urban areas. You
pointed out your concern for the accidental release of hazardous materials during the
construction phase, but did not acknowledge these same hazardous materials can
enter the basin by uncontrolled or accidental releases from urban sources. Why did
you not carry your risk analysis further? The construction problem is the less likely
problem since it is controlled. What are the chances of petroleum products, nitrates,
heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides etc. washing into the basin from storm water
runoff. The County has on record a copy of the November 24, 1992, Curtis and
Tompkins environment, report for soil analysis from the Laurel basin inlet, this report
showed positive results for Barium, Beryllium (highly toxic) chromium, cobalt, copper,
nickel, vanadium and zinc above reporting limits. Should we expect these metals to be
part of children's playing fields, I hope not. Why was your only concern for possible
hazardous materials buried in basin, when the top soil, and water quality should also
have been considered. The questions I purpose to you are there any risks to children
playing in the basin from hazardous materials deposited by storm water runoff. See
EPA article enclosed on Storm water Sampling a Constant Mandate. Have you
considered the "right to know" for people using the basin of potential risks to their
health.
Animal Life
If there exist a potential risk for hazardous materials to wash into the basin, what is the
chance of the material flowing to Marsh Creek and impacting the wild life environment
for future years. Have the Fish and Game reviewed your CEQA.
Ms. Germany
January 3, 1994
Page 2
Water
Your only comment was on the public water supply, however the residences bording
the basin on the North and west receive their drinking water from wells. Just because
the U.S. Corp. of Engineers says the Clean Water Act does not apply does not release
your morale obligation to review a potential problem. - Since when does the Corp. of
Engineers speak for the Clean Water Act for the State of California. Are you going to
set controls for the use of lime on the baseball fields and the use of fertilizers that may
drain into the riparian area
Transportation/Circulation
I am sure during the April 29, and July 6, 1993, Field Visits someone noticed that
Laurel Road east of O'Hara has,no provisions for foot or bicycle traffic. Is the County
concerned for the safety of humans since it appears the park will be in use prior to any
addition of sidewalks or bicycle lines. Why do you talk about the future when
discussing a present problem. I assume the road project is scheduled for 2005. What
will the ninety cars leaving parking area have on the safety for pedestrians and
bicycles.
Noise
The CEQA Environmental checklist was submitted on November 15, 1993, how do park
projected noise for 1994 become justified by noise projected for the year 2005. Explain
to me how your point is relevant. Similar noise as that which is likely to be coming from
basin is already heard from both the O'Hara and Laurel schools just north and
southwest of the affected residences.
Please explain how you expect to minimize the impact of the pedestrian traffic adjacent
to the residences since there is no proposed barrier between the basin top and
property lines. The landscaping that was discussed will probably take over five years
to mature and that is if no one is allowed to walk on it or to break the young trees.
The Public Works Dept. made a token attempt to plant some trees on the perimeter of
the basin this was over two years ago, their success rate of growing these trees
appears.to be very poor, what assurances do we have they will have a better success
rate with pedestrian traffic waking around their landscaping.
Note: The map included with your (CEQA figure 2 does not show the street or
locations of the affected residence, only someone knowing the area might figure
it out, however I do not believe the majority of the people receive copies are
aware that the residences' locations were left out. This gives a false impression.
Ms. Germany
January 3, 1994
Page 3
Mandatory Finding of Significance
a. The Fish and Game Dept. may want to evaluate the present unsampled outfall to
Marsh Creek.
b. I have included articles from professional magazines dealing with hazardous
materials to strengthen my point of the potential risks to people using the basin to
play.
In conclusion I feel it is reasonable to require an EIR since the County has not
addressed the real and potential hazards to humans and animals by possible materials
washed into the basin by storm water runoff. Just because the laws that govern others
for storm water runoff, the right to know, dose not apply in this case does not give the
County the right to overlook a potential problem, thereby leaving the question of liability
remaining for the Taxpayers and future generations.
CCurtis&Tompkins.U0.
LABORATORY NUMBER: 109259-1 DATE SAMPLED: 11/12/92
CLIENT: SUBSURFACE CONSULTANTS DATE RECEIVED: 11 /13/92
PROJECT ID: 788 . 005 DATE ANALYZED: 11/17-18/92
LOCATION: LAUREL BASIN-OAKLEY CA DATE REPORTED: 11/23/92
SAMPLE ID: BASIN WETTED AREA
Title 26 Metals in Soils & Wastes
Digestion Method: EPA 3050
METAL RESULT REPORTING METHOD
LIMIT
mg/Kg mg/Kg
Antimony ND 3 EPA 6010
Arsenic ND 2 EPA 7060
Barium 27 0 . 5 EPA 6010
Beryllium 0 . 2 0 . 1 EPA 6010
Cadmium ND 0 . 3 EPA 6010
Chromium (total ) 13 0 . 5 EPA 6010
Cobalt 3 . 8 0 . 9 EPA 6010
Copper 28 0 . 5 EPA 6010
Lead ND 3 EPA 7420
Mercury ND -0 . 1 EPA 7471
Molybdenum ND 0 . 7 EPA 6010
Nickel 14 2 EPA 6010
Selenium ND 2 EPA 7740
Silver ND 0 .5 EPA 6010
Thallium ND 2 EPA 7841
Vanadium 16 0 . 5 EPA 6010
. Zinc 21 1' EPA 6010
ND = Not detected at or above reporting limit.
QA/QC -SUMMARY
RPD, % RECOVERY, % RPD, % RECOVERY, %
Antimony 1 92 Mercury 3 98
Arsenic <1 107 Molybdenum <1 100
Barium <1 102 Nickel <1 100
Beryllium 2 108 Selenium <1 100
Cadmium 5 86 Silver 5 96
Chromium 1 102 Thallium 1 110
Cobalt <1 100 Vanadium 1 99
Copper <1 99 Zinc <1 94
Lead 2 89
Effluent Limits
Table 2 continued from page 21
Comparison of State Proposed and Alternative Discharge Limits more than five times higher than federal
(Alt values are monthly average limits in ppb) criteria. Because the aquatic life con-
State Proposed cerns were most relevant for this sce-
Proposed Alternative naris, a focused effort would be con-
Constituent Limit Limit Basis for Proposed Mtemative ducted to re-establish discharge limits
Aluminum 370 370 State proposed is acceptable based on studies evaluating the effects of
Barium 1,035 1,035 State proposed is acceptable site water on chemical toxicity or by
Arsenic(Tri) 43 50 Most stringent State standard recalculating criteria based on appropri-
Cadmium 0.98 1.5' and POL AL driven,but may be below
quantifiable levels ate resident organisms. Ultimate resolu-
Copper 8.7 15.5' AL driven,hardness dependent tion of the final permit limits would be
Lead 3 4.8'and POL AL driven,but may be below achieved through negotiation with state
quantifiable levels regulatory personnel. Q2
Mercury 0,009 POL and Tissue Use quantifiable endpoint and fish
Assay tissue assay References
Zinc 56 135' AL drivers,hardness dependent 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Vinyl Chloride 0.29 POL See"VC"below "Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in
Trichloroethylene 4.5 4502 Should be based on fish consump•. Streams and Rivers — Benthic Macroinverte-
tion only grates and Fish," EPA 4441489/001, Office of
Trans-1,2-Dichlo- 360 360 State proposed is acceptable Water,Washington,D.C..1991.
roethyieye 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Benzene 1.48 1283 Should be based on fish consump• "Guidelines for Deriving Numerical Aquatic
tion only Site-specific Water Quality Criteria by Modify-
Methyl Ethyl Ketone 2,070 2,070 State proposed is acceptable ing National Criteria: EPA 600/3-84-009,
Methyl lsobutyl 2,070 2,070 State proposed is acceptable Duluth.Minn.,1984
3. Hall,W.S.,B.G.Isom,R.J.Mirenda and L.
Ketone
Acetone 4,140 4,140 Stale proposed is acceptable Scott.-Me Use of Stream-side Macrocosms in
the Evaluation of Copper,Lead,and Zinc Effects
ML-Method Umit AL-Aquatic life-Based on Acidic Stream Biota in Support of Developing
VC-the source of the Vinyl Chloride limit is unknown.The lowest state standard is 0.02 ppb versus a discharge limit Site-specific Water Quality Criteria,"in Proceed-
of 0.29 ppb,whereas federal criteria are 2 or 525 ppb for human health protection.No aquatic fife criteria available. inns of the Ninth Annual Hazardous Materials
'Based on an appropriate receiving stream water hardness of 137 mglL CaCO3. Management Conference International,Atlantic
2The state's chronic aquatic life criterion of 450 ppb is limiting. City, N.J., Tower Conference Management
3The state's chronic aquatic life criterion of 128 ppb is limiting. Corp.,Glen Ellyn,111.,1991.
DELTA VANGUARD`S AIR STRIPPERS Professional Liability
REMOVE VOCs FROM GROUNDWATER Insurance
for
Delta Vanguard'Air Strippers purify ground- Environmental
water by effectively removing fuel/gasoline Engineers & Consultants
hydrocarbons-chlorinated hydrocarbons, sol-
vents, and certain other volatile organic Specifically 9
chemicals (VOCs). Pre-piped and pre-wired skid small to medium sized firms.
mounted systems are available for economical Program provides:
low cost installation. Pre-assembled systems ♦ Broad Coverage-
are also factory tested for trouble free start-up. including pollution and
j iron removal, chemical cleaning, air emission world wide coverage
and other factory assembled and tested
equipment packages, as well as pilot test units, ♦ "A" (Excellent) rated
are also available.
� insurance Company
Delta-Pak structured packing is an ultra low
pressure drop mass-transfer media which ♦ Realistic Premiums
efficiently removes most common contaminants, ♦ Specific Project or
_. including some considered difficult, if not Annual Coverage
impossible, to strip while providing maximum
resistance to fouling. Various other types of FREBERG
. ,
packings, as well as different column materials -�.-,. .
of construction, are also available. =; �e`.r ENVIRONMENTAL
DELTA COOLING TOWERS, Inc. 17=1 INSURANCE
114 Clinton Road Company's Underwriting Manager
Call Michael J. Hili
Fairfield, N.J. 07004-2970
(201) 227-0300 1 (800) 377-ort 52
Outside NJ 1-800-BUY DELTA
) orFAX
FAX 201 227-0458 o A01 (303) 623-8101
Circle 16 on card_ Circle 17 on card.
Se
�'' Table 1 --- Drinking Water Regulations
0 MCL(mgrs.) Methods Regulated Parameter MCL(mg/L) Methods
$Od
'ries Organics
`ter 0.005 a Dibromochioropropane tDBCP) 0.0002' 504
16 hloride 0.005 c 2.4-0 0,07' 515.1
17 ane 0.1' b Dinoseb 0.007+ 515.1
r. oenzene 0.075 b Diquat 0.02+ 549 1
p obenzene 0.6' b 2.4.5 TP(Silvex) 0.05' 515.1
nioroethane 0,005 c Endothali 0.1+ 548 j
,chloroethylene 0.007 c Endrin 0.002+ 505.508
!-Dichiorcethylene 0.07' c Ethylene dibromide(EDB) 0.00005' 504 {
L-Dichloroethylene 0.1' c Glyphosate 0.7+ 547
J chloromethane 0.5+ c Heptachtw 0.0004' 505.508
i,2-Dichloropropane 0.005' c Heptachlor epoxide 0.0002' 505.508
i
Di(ethylhexyi)adipate 0.5+ 508.825 Lindane 0.0002' 505
i
Qi(ethylhexygphthalate O.i+ 508.525 Methoxychlor 0.4' 505.508
Ethyl benzene OX a Oxamyl(Vydate) 0.2+ 531.1
Hexachtorobenzene 0.001+ 505,508.525 Pidoram 0,5+ 515.1
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 0.05+ 505.508.525 PCBs(as Decachlorobiphenyl) 0.0005' e
PAHs(Benzo(a)pyrenel 0.0002+# 525,550.550.1 Pentachlorophenol 0.001@ 515.5
Styrene O.1' a Simazine 0.001. 505.507.525
2.3.7,84CDO(Dioxin) 5x10-0 513 Toxaphene 0.003 505,508
Tetrachloroethylene 0.005' b Acrylamide treatment
Toluene 1' a Epichlorohydrin treatment
1,2,4-Trichiorobenzene 0.009+ a
1,1,1•Tdchloroethane 0.005+ c Inorganics
Trichloroethylene 0.005 b Antimony 0.01,1).005+. 204.2.200.8.D-3697
Vinyl Chloride 0.002 c Arsenic US 206.2
Xylenes(total) t0' a Barium 20@ 208.1,200.7
THMs(Trihatomethanes) 0.1 d Beryllium 0.001+ 210.2.200.7,200.8
Alachlor 0.002' 505.507 Cadmium 0.005+ 213.2.200.7
Aldicarb 0.003@, 531.1 Chromium 0.1+ 218.2,200.7 t
i
Aldicarb sulfoxide 0.004@ 531.1 Copper 1.3&. 220.1,200.8
Aldicarb sultone 0.003@ 531.1 Lead 0.015& 2392.200.8
Atrazine 0.003' 505.507 Mercury 0.002 245.1,245.2
Carbofuran 0.04' 531.1 Nickel 0.1+ 249.2.200.7,200.8
Chlordane 0.002' 505.508 Selenium 0.05+ 270.2,270.3
Uapon 0.2+ 515.1 Thallium 0,00210.001+ 279.2,200.8
Proposed FR 54(97)Monday May'22.1989.p,22062. Bibliography for methods:
Proposed FR 55(143)Wednesday July 25,1990.p.30370- 1.Federal Register 44(231)Nov.29.1979.68672,
x Six individual PAHs are regulated
&Proposed FR 53(160)Thursday Aug.18.1988,p.31516.ICP-MS method proposed FR 55 2.Methods for the Determination of Organic compounds in Oriihking Water. NT1S PB
(203)Friday Oct.19.1990.p.42409,Finalized FR 56(110)Friday June 7,1991.P.26460. 89.220461.December 1988.
3.Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water.Supplement 1
@ Revised FR 56(126)Monday July i,1991,p.30266. NT1S PS 91-108266,July 1990.
a 502.2.503.1.524.2:b 502.1.502.2.503.1,524.2:c 502.1,502.2,524.2: 4. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, NTIS P9 84-128677. Marcn
d 501.1.501.2.502.1.502.2.524.2:a 505.508.508A 1981
drinking water below which no adverse health effect has EPA office that determines a need to monitor for cert:l
beer'observed. contaminants. As a different EPA office recognizes the ne
In addition, more than 50 separate industries have been to monitor, new methods are developed. In many cases. t
regulated for wastewater discharges. EPA oversees these methods require different analytical equipment or differt
efforts through the National Pollution Discharge Elimina- matrices for the same analyte, depending on the l;
ion System (NPDES) permitting process, NPDES permit program, even though the different methods are identik
levels are chemical and industry specific. and quantifying the same chemical contaminant.
How The Methods Maze Started For example, there are 12 EPA methods that can be u
to determine thallium. The methods specify either tl:
Analytical methods originate in the particular federal ennhnend rh r.r.
f -
i
r ■
The EPA's most
recent studies have
shown that urban
and industrial run-
off possesses
pollutant
concentrations
rivaling those of
industrial
wastewater dis-
charges.Photo O
Warren Faidlevl _.
International Stock
Storml.w. ater Sampli.ng
A 'Constant Mandate
NPDES permit applicants might want to consider automated
monitoring systems to comply with regulations and ease the strain
of unpredictable weather and physical risks to run-off collectors.
By Robert Stilwell and Bob Bailey
urrent regulations governing NPDES help the permitting authority evaluate the oxygen
permit applications call for monitoring depletion potential of the discharge. BODS is the
from one to three representative storm most commonly used indicator of potential oxygen
events. Depending on whether the demand. COD is considered a more inclusive indica-
applicant is industrial or municipal, a number of for of oxygen demand, especially where metals
EPA-specified industries must perform annual or interfere with the BODS tests. With pH, the
semi-annual sampling. permitting authority holds important information
Stormwater sampling includes eight pollutant on the potential availability of metals to the
Robert Stilwell is tlarkrtin� Parameters. oil and grease, BODS, COD, total receiving flora, fauna and sediment. Total Kjeldahl
Commttniranonts llanayr suspended solids (TSS), total Kjeldahl nitrogen, nitrogen, nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen, and total
.for American Sienna Inc.of nitrate and nitrite nitrogen, total phosphorous and phosphorous are measures of nutrients that can
Medina 1:Y Ile has been H impact water quality.
ivnrinp prn.essionallc for P
lirr rears Bah Bailer is a Oil, grease and TSS are common components of Additional required testing of stormwater sam-
freelnnce:echnical itraer stormwater and can have serious impacts on receiv- ples for industry-specific pollutants and parameters
u'ho marks f om Buftdlu.
Y ing waters. Oxygen demand (COD and BOD;) will are stated in EPA's Core General Permit.
;.t ENXnu�NN([_N7,v(_i,tZ0ret-rl0N
P
I
I
Urban Areas Cu'rh
N.onpoint Runoff
By Ric Jensen
Detention basins, pervious surfaces
and greenbelts are proving their
usefulness in city efforts to reduce the
effects of nonpoint source pollution.
Cities and urban areas throughout the United States are
developing innovative approaches to learn more about and
solve problems relating to nonpoint source pollution. '.>n"
Nonpoint source pollutants are usually associated with
runoff. The nature of nonpoint source contaminants reflects
land uses in upstream watersheds. For example, golf courses
and landscapes can increase the level of nutrients and
fertilizers,while construction activities can boost the amount of
eroded sediments. In short, it is difficult to trace the exact
origin of many nonpoint sources.
EPA requires cities to monitor the amount and chemistry of # r
urban runoff taking place. In addition, many cities already = "•• `'-
have developed and implemented plans to capture and treat
stormwater runoff. City governments are not the only ones
trying to cope with the EPA regulations — industries and z
businesses are obtaining permits to limit runoff from vehicle l
maintenance areas and construction sites. `
Many experts believe that urban nonpoint sources pose a r
greater pollution threat than the more-publicized nonpoint '
pollution issues associated with rural areas. That is because
urban areas contain much higher amounts of paved areas
(impervious cover)that actually increase the volume and speed Sups its simple as placing hales of hay near sires n•ith bare soils can Ies.N
of runoff pollutants. fire runoant of scditne•nts that are carried anvry,hY rrntoff.fc Ernie Frank.
Some studies have shown, for example, that increasing the
amount of impervious cover from 60 percent to 90 percent triples treatment plants. In Baltimore, levels of zinc, lead and Copp
nitrate loads and boosts phosphate levels by 250 percent. In were roughly six times higher in urban runoff than they were
addition, urban areas often contain many activities (notably Maryland industries.
industries) that generate a greater number and variety of toxic In any event. the impact of a major storm and the nonp<,i
chemicals. In contrast, much of the attention given to rural pollutants it generates can be significant. This is especia
nonpoint sources focuses on nutrients. Finally, if nonpoint important because most runoff pollutants eventually find th'
sources degrade a drinkable water supply in a heavily populated way into major surface water sources used for drinkinn wn
area, it could impact many more people. and other human uses. A single storm event can generate in
Studies by the Natural Resources Defense Council in the of the pollutants entering a lake in a given year,according to
Chesapeake Bay area suggest that levels of heavy metals in North American Lake Management Society.
urban runoff were an astonishing 1.200 times greater than that Hoer bad is the urban nonpoint source pollution problem". I
from factories in Virginia. Sediment levels in urban runoff were hard to sav because little information has*been published on
26 times hither than those from municipal wastewater �ubiect. However, the EPA• landmark National Urban Hu
HAZMA CHEMIST
Risk a.13O.- ple of toxicology. According to Paracelsus,
wassment the 15th-century physician who developed
the concept of toxicology: "Everything is
poison.There is no substance which is not a
BY THONLAS K_WRAY poison. The right dose differentiates a poi-
Ion from a remedv." The concept of
S LIFE. IT
ISK ASSESSMENT PERVADES EVERYONE "threshold"doses, below which no harmful
effects occur,is important,because regulato-
e2dsts in many forms, from the simple to the SO- ry agencies use them as the basis for setting
safe exposure levels for chemicals in the
Rphisticated. Consciously or unconsciously, every- work-place and the environment(Figure 1).
The real controversy stems from the fact
one makes daily "risk assessments." We decide when and if that not all scientists subscribe to the con-
cept of thresholds for chemical carcinogens.
to walk in certain parts of town; we choose to fly instead of The controversy primarily is rooted in the
shape of the dose-response curve,which re-
drive; we eat healthy foods rather than fatty ones. mains a mystery when extrapolated from the
lowest experimentally determined point
On a more sophisticated level,risk assess- Animal testing usually involves feeding down to zero. It cannot be described with
ment almost always involves statistical com- rats or mice extremely high doses of a sub- absolute certainty,because the curve may go
parison. Insurers, for example, compare risks stance often the maximum amount they can through the origin, or it may reach zero at
associated with various groups and establish tolerate without dying directly from toxicity. some finite dose.
fee schedules commensurate with risk level. This approach ensures maximum sensitivity With few exception-,no one denies trace
The lower the risk, the lower the insurance to potential carcinogenic effects and mini- exposure levels exist for most chemicals,
cost,and vice versa. Based on these assess- mizes the number of lab animals required below which no toxic effects occur in any in-
ments, insurance companies generally offer for such studies. Exposing them to levels dividual. However,statistical evidence from
lower rates for females,good students and dn- similar to what humans experience would re- human epidemiological studies is inadequate
vets older than 25. Likewise, healthy,young quire millions of test animals. to defect small increases in mortality.Al-
non-smokers pay less for medical insurance. Doseqvsponse.Scientists agree cettaiin though animal studies are more sensitive to
Chemical risk assessment. The substances—both synthetic and natural— carcinogenic effects because of the high doses
chance of developing cancer from exposure can cause cancer in laboratory animals that involved,they are inadequate to explain what
to chemicals in the environment also is cal- receive very large doses.However,consider- occurs at much lower doses common in the
culated based on statistical evidence,but the able.disagreement exists as to what occurs at "real"world. Human epidemiological stud-
task is a complex one that stirs much debate. very low doses.If a substance causes cancer ies, for example, show no evidence of in-
According to the Office of Technology in rats at very high doses,will it cause cancer creased cancer from mariv products contain-
Assessment,environment is defined as"any- at any doser ing minute quantities of substances known to
thing that interacts with humans, including Dose-response is the fundamental princi- cause cancer in lab animals.
substances eaten,drunk,and smoked;
neutral and medical radiation; work-
place exposures;drugs;aspects of sex- Figure 1.Dose-response curve
ual behavior, and substances in air,
water and soil."The complexity does zero dose
not end there. Host factors also con-
Extrapolation to
tribute to cancer risk-- They are de- (predicts any dose will
fined as those attributes associated W cause a response)
with individual differences in the risk
of contracting cancer, including im-
munological and endocrine functions, 0
nutritional status, genetic constiru- IL Extrapolation to some finite
don,age,and gender. H -_-dose(predicts a response
There are as many as 2,000 sub- W
�
a- �wlll occur before reaching
stances that various groups have l � the threshold level)
beled as "suspect," "probable" or
"definite".human carcinogens. Only Uw WMM MM came WM=Do-
23 substances, including aflatoxiii,as-
bestos, vinvl chloride and benzene,
have been proven through human
epidemiological studies to increase Threshold dose
cancer rates.The remainder received
their carcinogenic classification based DOSE
on animalsrudics, No effect dose
MAZMAY WORLD-jAr\jt JARY 19`73 45
Table .' ife expectancy tpR
in the t,.»ted States ly"i
1980 :•
sponsibility for their 1970 toting, increased cancers from cigarette
own controllable enxi- 1960 -1 N Z _ smolang and increased motor vehicle
m 1950
ron
ental factors. _ deaths. Despite these drawbacks,life ex-
.Mostscientists gener- --•T- pectancl• in the United States has in-
allt• believe thar poor 1940 creased continually since the beginning
diet smoking-alcohol
_ of the Industrial Revolution(Table 23.
consumption, lack of 1930 =ti Although it is important to control
.,
exercise and other fac- "Z4 environmental factors that stntisdcaliv in-
tors are sipmifictnt in '""' crease the prolxrbilityofan each-demise,
cancer development. 1920 - risk never can be toetlh•elimintted The
Only a small percent- �.., d mere presence of a known hazardous
age of cancer deaths contaminant dtxs nor automatic ltv cor-
are believed to be re- relate to an increasLd health risk.
lated to ocLupacional 1910 Z
Factors and environ- -<.c Sources
mental pollution. i
Ames,Bruce,er aL,"Ranking prnsi-
Bruce N. Ames, ble carcinogenic hazards,"Scienxr,April
chairman of the bio- 17, 1987,pp.402-403.
chernistn•department Dreisbach, Robert H., Handbook of*
at the University of - Poisoning, I Ith Ed. Los Altos, Calif..
California, Berkeley, e' Lange ikledir.:al Publications,1983.
and his colleagues in ¢ OmAxmi,Alice Al,The Dow Maker
1987 published in Ser- o the Poison. Berkeley, Calif.: Vincente
erne matrazine a com- In Box+lcs Ie>fi6.
paradve study of can- U.S. Department of 1-Iealth and
cer risk from various environmental sub- computerized the nation and manufactured a Human Services.Sivtb.(innual Report on Car-
st mcs."I-able I depicts the study's results. plethora of convenient products.These and enrogeru. Rescarch Trian;de Park,N.C„l9')I.
Americans live in a techn(}logically ad- other developments have been ovenvhe:ltning- Withers, Be:nianin [r.et al,"Chemicals,
vaned society that has sent men to the moon, Iv beneficial but not without drawbacks— cancer and risk assessment,",7010nal of the
developed herbicides and pesticides to maxi- contamination from nuclear weapons con- LouLiana State,lineal Society,Vol. 143,Jan-
mizc crop growth, revolutionized medicine, struction, hazardous residues from manuEc- uary 1991,pp.33--p0.
ftP
1 + 11 11 + Here's The Program You Need To
Help Meet The New HM-126F Regulations'.
HM-126F training regulations require that you as an employer train
' ` r�•3 � . , ALL HazMat employees regarding safe loading,unloading,.han-
(fling storing and transporting of hazardous materials-including
Fir proper emergency response in the event of an accident.This train-
`; ; ing is not just liar drivers! All employees including warehouse and
office workers involved with shipment,storage,or transportation of
rhazardous materials must he trained on or before April 1, 1993.
,�. '�ta4 JL�I�_ w.^" r -.:•fir � �+
1.1.Keller introduces the tint program designed to help you
organize and administer this newly required employee training.
Keller's New HM-126F:A Training Program For HazMat
Employees.(AV-SO-K)
4� Our Easy-to-Use Program Includes:
�';� .r ♦ 25-Minute Video
$ ♦ 4 Instructors Guides and 4 Employee Handbooks
g With Tests.(Extra copies available!)
_ a.a�r,yo, ♦ Training Documentation
'ts ♦ HM-181 Label Chart and HM-181 Placard Chart
4 ♦ Full-Color Awareness Poster
♦ Keller's Special Report:The New HM-126F
x111�`-� .+ Training Requirements
`.etti
�ar.�lat Enlp .
Tta,ned
ulj Act before the April I, I993 J. J. Her
Np
ril 1, 1993t, Only $ 149 compliance deadline. &Ascot i;ites.Inc.
Includes the Video! Call Toll-Free today — 1'0.Box Jbr
.4'rrnah,11154V57
1-800-327-6868 Action Code tt47
Circle No. 339 on Reader Service Card
HAZMAT WORLD 47
'ami �^R.'!'�•nL'�^""�vY•"'�'.�wwr.�+MFw�i....r�... ,...... .... ..�._ — a....
� L7 ry
General description:A school for students in grades six through 12.The ; The HRS considers only whether contaminants of concern are present above or
area of concern is an athletic field containing contaminated soil.The significant path- ,below benchmark concentrations in evaluating relative risk to targets.rather than
ways are surface water and soil,both of which received maximum scores of 100. 'actual concentrations and the potential for exposure.This applies to the surface-
HRS score:more than 28.5. water migration and soil-exposure pathways. r�
4
31 Pish 33$ sum'.J.1t
OVERVIEW
SURFACS 7NAT R None of the contaminants present in soil exceeded the health-based bench-
Likelihood of �observed release of volatile and semivolatile mark.However,due to the targe number of contaminants(PAHs and pesticides)
organic compounds,an beryllium established. pnesent,total risk posed by the athletic field was evaluated.Both caminogenic and
Human food-chain and environmental threats. Toxicity-per- non-carcinogenic risk from all contaminants were within acceptable rams.(Oral
sistence-bioaccumulation values were based on benzo(a)pyrene and,therefore,are RfDs were not available for PAHs and two pesticides.)Thus,the extort of threat
relatively high(5 x 10"). HWO is 100:there is Level ll contamination of the food from ingesting soil as estimated by HRS is not supported by the risk assessment
chain and wetlands;and there is a high food-chain individual value.
REMARKS
The student population was considered to be subject to Level l contamination
SCMercury was detected in surface water(0.4 microgramsrliter)above the AWOC
The
from benzo(a)pyrene,resulting in a high target value.This compound,a probable and AALAC,making a qualitative risk assessment possible.
human carcinogen,also has a high toxicity value(10,000). There is no way to relate sediment concentrations for contaminants of concern
RE.PARAS to AWOCIAALACs for the environmental threat
Because of the age of the students,and discontinuous use of the athletic field, Although beryllium(1.2 mg/kg)exceeded the CRSC(3EO1 mg/kg)in surface
the risk from ingesting contaminated soil is likely to be overestimated. water,the risk cannot be quantified due to lack of fish-tissue analyses.
�y
U �
-
i+u
General description: An unlined landfill in a rural area. The site re- REMARKS
ceived about 70.5 tons of solid and liquid waste containing phthalate esters.(An
allegation that the landfill received an additional 7 million gallons of liquid waste Although the general direction of groundwater is toward the surface water,
is unconfirmed to date.)The major pathway of concern at this site is groundwa- the proximity of RW-1 and RW-5f7 to the landfill,and the high level of groundwa-
ter.All residents within a 4-mile radius of the site use groundwater as a water ter contamination at the site are likely to place residents at risk-
source,
isksource,and the two uppermost aquifers are interconnected.The aquifers'total' HRS does not consider the time factor in the migration of contaminants from
thickness is estimated at 250 feet.Most wells within a 1-mile radius are less than the site to drinking water targets. Based on a geological evaluation of the site,
100 feet deep. RW-1 and RW-5/7 are likely to become contaminated.
Before the SI, 15 VOCs were detected in shallow and deep monitoring wells. _ .. _....
During the SI,four of the shallow wells were resampled and VOCs were detected S1 P(s k a$S e S s n e n t
again.
HRS score:less than 28.5. OVERVIEW
Organic compounds and inorganic substances were present at concentra-
tions above the maximum contaminant level for potable water.Therefore,a quan-
titative risk assessment for cancer was performed on the assumption that conta-
mination levels detected in the monitoring wells could affect the nearby popufa-
Ukelihood of release.Vinyl chloride,benzene and arsenic,all human tion.When evaluated individually,vinyl chloride(17 microgramsAiter)and arsenic
carcinogens,as well as trichloroethene,tetrachloroethane and beryllium were de- (25.1 micrograms/liter) were outside EPA's acceptable risk range for cancer.
tected in the monitoring wells, resulting in an observed release.Four residential Total cancer risk from exposure to all contaminants of concern also was unac-
wells close to the landfill and one background well also were sampled.The two ceptable.
wells adjacent to the landfill(RW-1 and RW-517)were not contaminated at levels REMARKS
of toxicological concern.Cyanide was detected in RW-2,which was evaluated as
Level it contamination. Beryttium, cyanide and lead were detected in RW-4,a In contrast to HRS,a quantitative risk assessment on the potential for ingest-
Level I target well, ing contaminated groundwater—independent of the number of people drinking
Despite the observed release,and the Level l and ll contamination of residen- contaminated groundwater—was performed.
tial wells,the groundwater pathway score was only 25.6 due to the small number Potential adverse health and environmental effects from groundwater-to-sur-
of residents in the landfill's vicinity. face-water migration of toxicants were not evaluated.
HAZMAT WORLD-. ;EPTFMHER 1993 63
S P E C I A L R E P Q MEASURING RISK
Hurd BankinSystem and toxicological Pisk "' , tr
assessment modelsfielddiffepent Pesults
By Tat•-n DFjiGittNa.�,Nv GLNrn'SFr I C
iANJOR GOAL OF THE SUPE,RFuND SI IE:A.SSFssim NT exposure—are evaluated and scored.The
final HRS score is obtained by combining
program is identifying hazardous waste sites that pathway scores using a root-mean-square
method.14RS is intended to be a scrc:enin,
pose unacceptable risks to human health and the tool for measuring*relative,rather than alr
solute,risk.
environment. To accomplish this, EPA developed the Haz- The Superfund site assessment pro-
gram usually requires at least mo studies of
and Ranking System (HRS), a mathematical model used to a potential hazardous%taste site before it is
proposed for listing on the NPL.The ini-
assess the relative risk associated with ac- lease,waste characteristics and targets.Val- tial study, or preliminary assessment(PA),
tual or potential releases of hazardous ues for the factor categories arc multiplied, is a limited-scope evaluation based on
wastes from a site(40 CFR 300). HRS is a then normalized to 100 points to obtain a available historical information"hind data
scoring system based on factors grouped pathway score. Four pathways—ground- that can be gathered readily during a site
into three categrories — likelihood of re- water,surface water,air migration and soil reconnaissance. PAs typically do not in-
o .
��ttGel''•►Efi ��,q
+tl�+ i4 7
REMARKS
General description:A public recreational area adjacent to a surface- Pour PAHs were detected in various surface-water sediment samples at lev-
water body in a semi-urban area.The source is contaminated subgrade material els above health-based benchmarks.One is benzo(a)pyrene.a probable human
(rocks,gravel and soil)used as bedfi I for railroad tracks.Because some of this carcinogen,which was detected at 0.76 mg/kg and has a CRSC of 1.8E"mg/kg.
material was removed from the site,the HWO is unknown.Therefore,default vat- The PAHs were not attributed to the site and were not used to derive the HRS
ues from the NRS were used—groundwater(10),surface water(100),soil(10) score.Although this does not affect the HRS score,because mercury produces
and air(10). factor values as high as benzo(a)pyrene,the total relative risk posed by this site
HRS score:less than 28.5. may be underestimated.
Because the site is a public area likely to be used by many people,the actu-
Hi f°I u t I.t u" P is i( al threat from exposure to arsenic may be greater than that indicated by the
nearby-population threat score.
GRC11:NG:JkTER The effects of the relative) high toxici
Likelihood of release and targets.No samples were collected. Y 9 typersistencebioar cumulation vat
because most residents receive municipal water obtained from surface-water in- ues may have been diminished by the HWQ value,
takes outside the study area,and direction of groundwater flow is toward nearby n)
surface water.Thus,this pathway is evaluated as a potential to release. :s i {'l Z 4, u v u,,i 3 i
Waste characteristics.The toxicity-mobility value was based on ar-
senic,a human carcinogen,and is therefore significant.However,because of the . OVE RV IE v
low HWO value,the waste characteristic factor value is low. A quantitative risk assessment determined that the risk associated with the
SURF AC-',NATER observed release of arsenic(207 mg/kg) to soil was 1.7E1'and,therefore,not
Likelihood of release.This pathway was evaluated as an observed re- within EPA's acceptable range, even though the soil-exposure pathway score
lease.The most toxic substance attributable to the site is mercury. under the HRS is low.
Human food-chain threat.The combined toxicity-persistence-bioac- Unlike the HRS, the carcinogenic risk from ingesting PAHs was quantified,
cumulation value was high(5 x 10"),but the HWO(100)results in a waste char- even though these compounds were not attributable to the site and were present
acteristics factor value of 320(maximum 1,000).Target values are minimal, in background samples.Although the risk from exposure to PAHs was within
Environmental threat. The ecotoxicity-persistence-bioaccumulation
value was high(5 X f 0°)but the HWO(100)results in a waste characteristics fac—
tor value of 320.Target values are minimal contaminated sediments and soils is possible.
Based on the degree of these threats, the overall surface-water pathway RU,1::2XS
score is low. Due to lack of data, the relative risk associated with potential groundwater
SC:t contamination cannot be estimated as it is in the HRS.
Despite an observed release of arsenic.the overall pathway score is low due A CRSC was available"for only one of four PAHs and,thus,may not represent
to the low HWO and the absence of a resident population(persons living,attend- the highest value.
ing school or working on the site and whose building is within 200 feet of the Because of the current scope of the SI, risks from ingesting contaminated
contamination),and an insignificant nearby-population threat score. fish and contamination of the aquatic ecosystem cannot be quantified.
62 HAZAAAT WORLD.,;[PT[MEiFR )4193
228 PETROLEUM CONTAMINATED SOILS
Amount of Genotoxic
Soil Eaten Exposure Mechanism Epidemioloc
or Promoter
%Land Access Environmental Risk
Contamination to Land Fate Criteria
Animal
to Man Bioavailability Dose-response Pharmacokinei
Extrapolation Extrapolation
Figure 1. Environmental risk assessments of contaminated soil must consider E.
of critical factors.To understand fully the risks,each of the factors,like tf
of a puzzle, must be considered. (From: Paustenbach et al 6).
INGESTION OF SOIL BY CHILDREN
The exposure estimation procedure is perhaps the most important aspec
assessments of sites having contaminated soil. In CDC's assessment of
in soil,' their estimates indicated that the primary route of exposure for
was soil ingestion(Table 1). CDC predicted that, for a residential site cor
soil contaminated with TCDD,about 95%of the average lifetime uptake of
would occur as a result of soil ingestion; about 3% of the lifetime dose
be absorbed through the skin as a result of contact with contaminated s
sociated with gardening and poor hygiene); and no more than 2`Y of ti
dose would be due to inhalation of TCDD-contaminated dust.Other enviroi
risk assessments°•6 have also indicated that soil ingestion by toddlers
primary hazard in residential settings. Paustenbach10 showed that for th(
ing 70 years in an area having TCDD-contaminated soil, inhalation
predominant route of entry,although the level of contamination will usually
Table 1. CDC Estimates of TCDD Uptake by Route of Exposure (1 ppb i
Average Daily Dose % L
Route (fg/kg/day) UI
Ingestion 606
Dermal uptake of soil 20
Uptake of soil inhaled t0
From Paustenbach et al.6 with permission from Regulatory Toxicology and Pharma
EVALUATING HEALTH RISKS 229
a negligible hazard. In its calculations, CDC assumed that 10,000 mg/day of soil
oxic would be ingested by children aged 1.5 to 3.5 years,and that during other periods
nism Epidemiology ingestion would be much less, depending on age (Table 2). Persons between 5
nater and 10 years were assumed to ingest 1,000 mg of soil/day,and those aged 17-70
were expected to ingest 100 mg/day through incidental exposure.3 If these as-
sumptions are used, the resulting estimates indicate that about 80% of the entire
lifetime dose of nonvolatile and nonwater-soluble chemicals which are present
amental Risk in contaminated soil occurs during the first 5 years of life(i.e., chemicals whose
ate Criteria environmental half-life is at least 10 years).
Table 2. Ingestion of Dirt"(CDC's 1984 Assumptions).
% Lifetime
Age Group Soil Ingested (mg/day) Uptake
!sponse . pharmacokinetics 0-9 months 0 0
olation 9-18 months 1,000 2.6
1.5-3.5 years 10,000 70.0
3.5-5 years 1,000 5.2
5-70 years 100 22.6
,ted soil must consider a number 3Adjusted for seasonal variations.
each of the factors,like the pieces From Paustenbach et al.6 with permission from Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology.
Istenbach et al.6).
In tight of the critical role which soil ingestion can play when estimating human
exposure to contaminated soil,a survey of the literature was undertaken to iden-
tify the typical amount consumed by children and adults.10 The research efforts
to evaluate lead uptake by children due to ingestion of contaminated soil, paint
most important aspect of risk chips, dust, and plaster provided the best source of information.27-54 Walter and
CDC's assessment of dioxin co-workers27 estimated that a normal child typically ingests very small quantities
•oute of exposure for humans of dust or dirt between the ages of 0-2, the largest quantities between ages 2-7,
)r a residential site containing and nearly insignificant amounts thereafter. In the classic text by Cooper'28 it
rage lifetime uptake of TCDD was noted that the desire of children to eat dirt or place inedible objects in their
Yo of the lifetime dose would mouths "becomes established in the second year of life and has disappeared more
t with contaminated soil (as- or less spontaneously by the age of four to five years." A study by Charney et
,o more than 2% of the total al.29 also indicated that mouthing tends to begin at about 18 months and continue
iced dust.Other environmental through 72 months,depending on several factors such as nutritional and economic
ingestion by toddlers is the status as well as race. Work by Sayre et al.70 indicated that ages 2-6 years are
110 showed that for those liv- the important years, but that "intensive mouthing diminishes after 2-3 years of
ated soil, inhalation was the age, '
lamination will usually present An important distinction that is often blurred is the difference between the
ingestion of very small quantities of dirt due to mouthing tendencies and the disease
of Exposure (1 ppb in Soil). known as pica. Children who intentionally eat large quantities of dirt, plaster,
Dose % Lifetime or paint chips (1 to 10 g/day) and, as a consequence, are at greater risk of de-
,) Uptake veloping health problems,can be said to suffer from the disease known as pica.=°
95 1f the craving is for dirt alone,this disease is known as geophasia. It is this disease,
3
2 rather than pica, which is of primary concern in areas of contaminated soil. The
y Toxicology and Pharmacology. incidence of pica has often been misquoted because some of the best studies were
conducted in children who already suffered from lead poisoning due, in part,
y..'_ ♦_F !'�I '-- •' ,� 'n.s >.'�•'[j. � '�- cr<t,��.i r.- � - ',i,. J h � • 'tet :�.� �- �.�:1'r
INNOVATION..
the revised Califopnia Hazardous Material
Plan (HMICP)
Incident Contingency
by Paid J. Penn
California has been acknow- The Hi%IICP was originally published the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska have
ledged as a leader in hazardous in 1982 in response to the mandate estab- heightened the awareness of the threat of
ma-terial emergency planning lished in Serrate Bill 183 (1980) and hazardous material incidents in the
and response.Part of that leadership has codified in Section 8574.16-8574.17of public and private sectors. Myriad new
been in planning at all levels of the the California Government Code. The laws have been enacted to require en-
public and private sectors for incidents section requires a state toxic disaster hanced preparedness and accountability
that release or threaten to release hazard plan that on the part of those who handle hazard-
ous materials (including radiological -...shall provide Foran integrated andeffective ous materials.
and oil spills). One of the negative state procedure to respond to the occurrence of Most notable of the new laws are
ramifications of this enhanced planning toxic disasters within the state. The plan shall those which are referred to as the hazard-
process has been a plethora of docu- provide for specified state agencies to implement ous material emergency planning and
ments that do not necessarily lead to the the plan..for inter-agency coordination of the community right-to-know programs.
overall coordination of activities at a training conducted by state agencies pursuant to These are embodied in the federal Super-
hazardous material incident.The lack of the plan.and for on-scene coordination of agencies fund Amendments and Reauthor•i_ation
an overall organizational structure has pursuant to the plan.and foron-scene coordination Act of 1986 (SARA Title III) authored
hampered the emer��ency response and of response actions." by Senator Frank Lautenberg(N.J.)and
the emergency management of hazard- Theexplicit intent of the HMICP is to Chapter 6.95 of the California Health
ous material incidents. The California provide a reference and resource docu- and Safety Code which codifies As-
Hazardous Material Incident Contingen- ment,not an operational tool. sembly Bills 2185.2187.2189 authored
cy Plan (HMICP) attempts to rectify Much has changed in hazardous by Assemblywoman Maxine Waters
these obstacles to effective management material emergency management since (L.A.) and Assembly Bills 3777, 1059
of hazardous material emergencies. 1982. Events such as Bhopal. India and authored by Assemblywoman Marian
La Follette(Northridge).The California
program preceded and is more com-
prehensive than its federal counterpart.
HEELER, EHRMAN, WHITE & McAULIFFE Both require government to plan forhaz-
ardous material incidents within their
LEADERSHIP IN ENVIRONMENTAL COUNSEL jurisdiction and for business to disclose
hazardous materials handled within
Today, environmental law is complex and pervasive. private facilities. Chapter handled
also re-
We provide legal counsel, litigation and legislative quires businesses to develop emergency
services to assist you in addressing critical issues. plans. With approximately 100.000
Our clients include small companies and established businesses in California subject to the
planning requirements, over 120 local
corporations in manufacturing, mining, hazardous administering agencies required to
waste recycling, real estate and financial services,and develop area plans, and six SARA
municipal governments. regional plans,there are now many plans
AREAS OF EXPERTISE where there formerly was a dearth of
plans. In addition there are a number of
• Proposition 65 counseling other related plannina activities(involy-
• Hazardous and toxic waste regulation ing hazardous materials that impact
• Air pollution and water quality requirements California.
• Facility siting and permit negotiation The need to update the HMICP has
• Asbestos removal been evident for a number of years. Ef-
• Compliance of hazardous waste removal forts began in earnest in December of
• Land acquisition and development 1988 and have continued into early
• Environmental legislative lobbying 1990. Interested state, federal and local
555 South Flower Street,25th Floor governmental agencies and repre-
Los Angeles,California 90071 sentatives of the private sector were
provided copies of the drafts as they
(213) 689-0200 evolved. Interaction was encouraged at
periodic meetings to discuss progress
San Fnnrcisco•Palo:tlto•Seattle•Portiand•Tacoma•anchorage
and resolve issues as they arose. It be-
came evident that while the original
Circle Reader Service Card» 179
n ham, ,non
1 SJR ��� t;.:�T��+.�tx,4 �+. �r 1s-� '�ti L Y � Y-'���*17^•' �A���
Li aa�jj�J� =�, [�il t� t t...rw...ti^1 a+i "....�tr�f'r � L ~r• R ',.t ..L
J _ •ti
r
x„. ,�,_• �1 yf .,} _ ..` rt rti fFv�'4L�1 ""x F,t''lei k' `
r,ta.:_- 7?"�.s. yi{'. 'lfF��" s,{.^ x:sw..�'..�"�.,tW'g.- ��►"�s�o..—r—^vz'~i.,� +s"^ .t -a,c. ., zr. 4 M,.+'
41
r !' _ -5���'F.iy''S�'�Z"'"` r` t e**.ti`dS'•ri�`Y�'�.
c"� �yyr•,;�t`'�.rrti, �k� r. �7si�n�:�s}. c1.w"" •£ ��, J.J.'4Z::
cif'W- w.�1.+r�tl�j�,; y„*,y"'� 'k7�r Tr.,y:�i�.Y la•'"`yr. 'U 4
--•.ik'>
��„ �,.� y !Ir '7,Jriy.I• .✓}'4c�',i,f.rFyy?'� ytt".^�1w •�.
. r �w.rw'. frF1'tjIIK ^�rcr�ir'�*`
wr,� .. r.3+s,/'-� ✓ !'y'a'k _ - 7..v
I: .�"aiG'�.:n"'f�-g•. '1 {� ,r, c t s, �� .rid' r Yr+*rivet!.... `.,'
t „i+• ? ,. "�'-_, �rr.`{ f l � �• ��,,.�.v.'�'yam.,.,, has y �
.��� .til{ a" �`r'��w� .t�t►�+i7' �`W'• �.if� Fl r..;�.�.t�.t�'."" ;,�� �
rop 65 ,
•
California's Environmental Accounting
by Roger-Lune Ca,-rick
alifomia's now famous Proposi- an 85% affirmative response, it's no Section 25249.8}. This list, established
tion 65,the Safe Drinking Water surprise that the environmentalists'final by the Governor in light of the recom-
and Toric Enforc'enrent 11ct of draft of Prop 65 was passed by a two- mendations of his expert Science Ad-
1986, was the wakeup call for environ- thirds vote in California in November, visory Panel, now includes almost 300
mental policy in the 1990's. 1n the early 1986. chemical carcinogens or reproductive
1980's, the creation of the OSHA toxins.
Hazard Communication Standard Basic Provisions Chemicals on the Govemor'sList are
provided workers with a"right to know" Prop 65 is a "rifle shot statute;' which subject to the"warning"requirement of
about occupational exposures to a vast means there is no enforcement if the Prop 65 at any point 12 months after they
array of chemicals, including car- chemical in question is not on the are placed on the Governor's list. The
cinogens and reproductive toxins. Now Governor's list of carcinogens and "warning requirement"is triggered by a
Proposition 65 represents the cutting reproductive toxins. And unlike all the knowineand intentional exposure ofany
ed�,eofenviro amental theory. When the other environmental statutes that have a individual to a chemical on the
Sierra Club and Environmental Defense: re zulatory agency charged with their en- Governor's list,and is met by first giving
Fund commissioned a survey in the forcement.Prop 65's citizen enforcement a clear and reasonable wamine of the
winter of 1985,they sought to capitalize and bounty-hunter provisions of enforce chemical exposure (Cal. Health and
on the ever-growing public concern mens by lawsuit provide a flavour of old Safety Cade Section 25249.6). In addi-
about toxics to test drive whether Wild West vigilante justice. tion.Prop65 virtually bans dischargesof
California's voters would support a"safe The core of Prop 65 is the Governor's listed chemicals into drinking water
drinkim_ water" initiative on the 1986 Liar i/ Car•c itiogetis and Reproductive sources at any time 20 months after they
California �,.eneral election ballot. With Tmicts (Cal, Health and Safety Code are placed on the list.in light of the taw's
-__ Nlnvamhar 19an